Skip to main content

About your Search

20121007
20121007
STATION
CNN 2
CNNW 2
CSPAN 1
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
CSPAN
Oct 7, 2012 1:25am EDT
at the international trading environment and worry about that. this is the answer to your question. a world and which the united states is strong but all of the institutions is eroding is not a world of 2011. the united states has an interest in trying its best to shore up institutions. >> this is great. >> get set to run it, john. >> a couple of quick points. my thesis is not the institutions are independent. they are instruments of power. they are used to signal limits on power. power is never divorce from institution. a venture that regard, i idea that the united states has been so brilliant for half a century or longer because, it has allowed it to make the power more durable and expensive but also making it more delimited and less based on arbitrary use of power and the most traditional sense. there are a vehemence of republican allow for the state to be more influential by allowing it to signal its own strength. a couple of more point about this. my underlying argument is that we are shifting from one organized around trilateral world, the u.s. rip germany, japan, the kind of trilateral system.
CNN
Oct 7, 2012 10:00am PDT
. the environment has gotten such a got you environment that even the politicians themselves and regulators have to do their business with one eye over the shoulders for fear of being dragged into some congressional committee or they'll be exposed for having to talk to leaders. so i think this idea of working together, i think in order to allow people to work together, there has to be a little bit of a letup. another thing is you can't kill people if everything doesn't work out perfectly. who the heck is going to take the jobs in business and government. you'll always get people that want to be ceo and senator and cabinet secretaries, but it might not be the people you want if you make it so punishing for them to take the job and unsustainable to be in the job because who gets it right all the time? >> that's actually an important distinction. john chambers and i were talking about it. in business, you take risks. some of them work out. some of them don't. in government, it's very difficult to take risks because if something goes badly, you're going to get pilloried for it. there's no particular
CNN
Oct 7, 2012 7:00am PDT
are not just the risks we take. the environmental is such a "got you" environment even the regulators have to do their business with one eye over the shoulders for fear of being dragged over the national committee and having to be skboesed to talk to leaders. i think in order to allow people to work together, there has to be a little bit of a let-up. another thing is you can't kill people if everything doesn't work out properly. who the heck is going to take the job whether in business or otherwise. it might not be the people you want if you make it so punishing for them to take the job and so unsustain tobl be in the job because who gets it right all the time? >> that's actually an important distinction. john chal bers and i wither talking about it. in business, you asigh you take risks. some of them work out. some of them don't. in government, it's very difficult to take risks because if something goes badly, you're goingo get pilleried for it. the balance that you worry about is very different, right? >> it is. business has an advantage that we know if we don't take risks, there's low c
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)